Compliance with the provisions of section 25-FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is crucial in cases of establishment closure, and allegations of unfair labour practice require serious evidence to support them.

JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner union is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15-12-1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 842 of 1998 filed by the petitioner against the respondents alleging an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 6 of Schedule II and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act, 1971. It may be clarified at this stage itself that the petitioner union had given up its allegation of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 6, Schedule II of the Act and had confined its case only to Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner union was that the respondent company had affected closure of its establishment by notice dated 25-6-1998 in violation of section 25-FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner had prayed for an interim order from the Industrial Court but it failed to succeed. It also failed to succeed in its challenge to the interim order of the Industrial Court before this Court. The Industrial Court had tried the complaint finally on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties. By the impugned judgment and order the Industrial Court had dismissed the complaint on merits.

2. Shri Ganguli, the learned Advocate for the petitioner union has pointed out that there was a settlement between the respondent company and the Engineering and Metal Workers Union, which was functioning at that time. Under the said settlement it was agreed that the number of workmen employed would be reduced in three phases by 25. This settlement was arrived at to make the unit economically viable and to reduce the cost. Under the settlement the outgoing workmen were paid 60 days wages per completed year of service including gratuity and pension. As a result of the aforesaid settlement the number of workmen employed was reduced from 69 to 44. The last batch of the out going workmen was of 23-4-1998. According to Shri Ganguli, as soon as the number of workman employed was reduced below 50 i.e. to the number of 44 the respondent company gave a notice on 25-6-1998 to close down its establishment permanently and irrevocably, as stated in the said notice. Shri Ganguli has therefore submitted that the closure is not only mala fide and motivated but was also in violation of section 25-FFA of the I.D. Act. Shri Ganguli has submitted that the act of closure amounted to victimise the workmen as after the settlement they had joined the petitioner union and the respondents did not like the said decision of the workmen joining the petitioner union. The second ground of attack by the learned Advocate is violation of section 25-FFA of the I.D. Act. It was pointed out by the learned Advocate that though on the date of the closure the figure was reduced to less than 50 on an average, in the preceding 12 months from the date of notice of closure the employment was 53 and therefore, it was obligatory for the respondent company, who have complied with section 25-FFA of the Act. Shri Ganguli has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (S.G. Chemical Dyes Trading Employees Union v. S.G. Chemicals Dyes Trading Ltd. another)1, reported in 1986(1) C.L.R. 360. According to him, in view of the said judgment violation of section 25-FFA is amount to an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the whole relief of a direction to the respondent company to lift the closure and restart the company and reinstate all the workmen who were in employment on the date of the closure with full back wages and all other consequential benefits.

3. Shri Purav, the learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Industrial Court has recorded facts on the basis of the evidence and material on record. According to the learned Counsel, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document